Advanced Search Results

Gaurikanta Barkataky Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Subject : FamilyDirect Taxation

it, was justified and did not err in holding that there was no existence of valid Hindu undivided family and thus pass a perverse order ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

Karsandas Dharamsey Vs. Gangabai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR184

Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues as a member of a joint undivided Hindu family, alleging that his great grand-father Mulji Jetha, with his son Soonderdas Mulji founded the family fortunes, acquiring great

Savitribai Widow of Dhakji Balcrustna Vs. Luximibai Widow of Ganoba An ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom573

a decree for sale and partition was made by Sir Erskine Perry on the 25th September 1852. The family property, the subject of that suit, consisting of a house in the Kalbadevi Road and a chawl, with

Lingangouda Gurangouda Hiregaudar Vs. Sangangouda Bapugouda Hiregaudar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyFamily

Reported in : AIR1933Bom386; (1933)35BOMLR779; 145Ind.Cas.780

dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession of a half share in property alleged to be joint family property of plaintiff and defendants.2. The relationship of the parties was a matter of contest in the trial

Laxmanrao Madhavrao Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 - Sections 2(11), 2(11A), 2(20), 3, 3(3), 4(1), 5, 6, 12 and 18; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 312 and 315; Transfer of Property Act; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : AIR1979Bom276; 1979MhLJ357

Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended up to date, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The family unit of which the petitioner is a member, is declared to be a surplus holder to the extent

The Advocate General Vs. Jimbabai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR799

be brought at once into contact with the legal notions peculiar to the law of the joint Hindu family. I think it will be convenient to incorporate the whole of my judgment in the case of Jan

Nagappa Narayan Shetti Vs. Mukambe Venkatraman Shetti

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3, 3(2) and 3(3)

Reported in : AIR1951Bom309; (1951)53BOMLR177; ILR1951Bom443

widow Mukambe & his son Manjanath. Manjanath died on 18-2-1939. Nagappa was thereafter the sole survivingcoparcener of the family & the present suit was filed by Mukambe, the widow of Venkatraman, against Nagappa for a partition of

Jan Mahomed Abdulla Datu Vs. Datu Jaffar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR1914Bom59; (1913)15BOMLR1044

the plaint and the business referred to therein are the properties and business of a joint and undivided family. That the rights of the plaintiffs and the other defendants therein, be ascertained and declared. That the said

Shivaji Ganpati Muthal and ors. Vs. Murlidhar Daji Muthal and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Law; Limitation Act - Sections 6 and 7

Reported in : AIR1954Bom386; (1954)56BOMLR426; ILR1954Bom794

Pull Bench are very few. Ganpati, who is the father of the plaintiffs, made an alienation of joint family property in 1936. At that time the joint family consisted of Ganpati and his son Maruti who was

Mahadu Kashiba Varnekar Vs. Gajarabai Shankar Varnekar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3, 3(2) and 3(3);

Reported in : AIR1954Bom442; (1954)56BOMLR387; ILR1954Bom885

Bavdekar, J.1. The property in the suit, from which the present appeal arises, originally belonged to a joint family consisting of two brothers, Shripati and Shankar. Shankar died first leaving a widow Gajara, who was the plaintiff